Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-jbkpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T17:47:43.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Actors, Editors, and the Annotation of Shakespearian Playscripts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2007

Peter Holland
Affiliation:
Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham
Get access

Summary

In recent years, Shakespearian editing - long conducted in a quiet intellectual backwater, undisturbed by larger culture wars - has itself become a key battleground for current theoretical controversy. Debate has, however, tended to focus on the handling of the texts themselves, especially the practices of emendation and modernization, while other key aspects of editorial responsibility have received scant attention. The work of annotation, in particular, remains effectively unscrutinized.

This selectivity of vision has left undisturbed the traditional assumption that the rationale and aims of Shakespearian annotation are self-evident and therefore easily defined - so easily, in fact, that no one need devote energy to defining, or debating, them in print. R. A. Foakes has noted, with regret, the complete absence of 'guides to making a commentary on a Shakespeare play', a situation rendered more disturbing, since 'in editions like those in the Arden series the commentary, which is on the same page as the text, may well be the editorial contribution that is most useful and most studied'. Editors themselves generally remain silent about the principles or preferences that shape their style of annotation. Similarly, reviewers of new editions, though they may on an ad hoc basis query this or that piece of annotation, rarely mount a broader challenge to the rationale (or lack of it) discernible in the overall pattern of annotation in a particular edition; and too often they confine their comments to generalities, pausing only to remark that a particular editor's notes are 'judicious' or that another's 'are copious, perhaps sometimes even excessive', but also 'thoughtful and unintimidating'. In neither of the reviews from which those comments are taken is a single illustration offered in support of these judgements.

Type
Chapter
Information
Shakespeare Survey
An Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production
, pp. 181 - 198
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×